Yes if the options were to bear a child with 10 broken limbs or not, I would think it prudent to choose the latter for the reasons you mentioned. — NOS4A2
But we’re not really talking about parents genetically doomed to have genetically deformed children, are we, but all births regardless of the child’s condition or not — NOS4A2
And if that child grows up to not only enjoy its life but do the world a metamorphosmic good? — Shamshir
And there is your proof that the philosophical potential person is to be treated exactly the same as the actual potential person. Because, as I said, the consequences are the same. Do you still think they should be treated differently? If so why.
You don't need to be genetically doomed for your child to have a shit life. So don't take the risk for them.
I think they should be treated differently because one is the actual material of procreation, will lead to procreation, and will lead to dire consequences if messed with — NOS4A2
I’ve already distinguished between an actual potential human—the necessary ingredients involved in procreation—and the thought of a potential child. We can’t apply the same ethics to the actual processes of procreation as we would to the fuzzy “potential human” we keep evoking — NOS4A2
I get the argument, but I think we’re conflating a real potential human-I suppose fertilization—and a philosophical potential human. I just sense some unjust reification going on here. — NOS4A2
I don’t think the two can be conflated. — NOS4A2
So the ethics here are, it is right conduct to avoid pregnancy for the sake of protecting a child who may or may not exist at some point in the future. Is that fair? — NOS4A2
Do you think the conflation posited justifies denying a happy person? — Shamshir
Succumbing to the fear of a threat, you would, if you haven't, doom yourself to failure — Shamshir
But... You treated them the same... I asked you if it was ok to genetically modify someone to suffer and you said no. You called that a "real potential person". I then asked if it was ok to have a child you know will suffer and you said no. You called that a "philosophical potential person" because he hadn't been procreated yet. Yet you answered no in both cases. Also I'm not sure what this "rubbing together" quote is supposed to mean. I was addressing this:
One was a matter of principle the other a matter of prudence — NOS4A2
How is antinatalism more than moral posturing, given that there isn’t any right conduct towards actual living beings? — NOS4A2
Murder and rape are natural..... this is just a naturalistic fallacy. Having a child obviously forces a child to exist, it IS forcing. You didn’t choose to exist did you? Now that would be impressive — khaled
And your child might have something different in mind than preserving the human race. I’ll just leave it at that. — khaled
It is not forcing. I'm not taking the child out of unborn child limbo against his will and pushing him out into the mean bad world. — staticphoton
Yes but preserving the human race and doing something to improve the world you live in is more important, a higher calling if you will, — staticphoton
To a great extent our needs include to be part of, to contribute in some way. Much more important than "it makes me feel good to help" is that your world/environment is becoming a better place because of it. — staticphoton
You call me selfish because I force my belief on someone who is not born yet.
I call you selfish because out of fear that one individual might experience suffering you are willing to ignore the need to improve mankind. — staticphoton
Improving mankind involves a risk, and it is an endeavor that benefits the many sometimes at the expense of an individual. — staticphoton
If the improvement of humanity means nothing to you, then I can understand why life would be meaningless. — staticphoton
Fair point. Maybe it's not "forcing" but the fact that you have no consent to do it doesn't change. That's the real problem — khaled
Consent develops after a certain level of formation is achieved. — staticphoton
Does that make it ok to say, torture children because they can't say no? When consent isn't available you do the least harmful alternative no? — khaled
It does. But that's not the point. Even if it meant something to me I wouldn't force it on others. Why aren't you getting the simple point that it's not about what you believe to be good. Unless you are willing to force others to work for your values which I don't think you actually are. — khaled
You are doing what you believe is good. You are preventing the child from existing because you believe it is best for him that way. — staticphoton
They can't say no because they are not capable to understand the circumstances, not because you are robbing them of the choice. — staticphoton
You are creating the problem. There is no such a thing as consent coming form being incapable of understanding what consent is. Consent develops after a certain level of formation is achieved. — staticphoton
So that means that consent is not an issue for young children. So then I asked whether or not it's ok to torture them. Please actually answer the question. — khaled
Torturing your child means directly and willfully harming them with intent. The answer is no, it is not ok. — staticphoton
Alright. How about putting them in a situation where they MIGHT get harmed. Say, leaving them in the middle of traffic. — khaled
No. I am not benefiting anyone by not giving birth to them. I'm just making sure no one is harmed. Not having children is not "good" it's neutral. It's just that having children is bad. Because it's imposing your own ideals of life on them when you don't have their consent. — khaled
It's just that having children is bad. Because it's imposing your own ideals of life on them when you don't have their consent. — khaled
Again, reducing human life to a paper thin logic and ignoring the merits of human existence. — staticphoton
And you're not getting the point that a newborn is incapable of choice because he doesn't yet understand what choice is. He will after you teach him. — staticphoton
Not getting the point that your child might not agree with you a about human existence having merit — khaled
But other than food and shelter, that is what a born child needs, a nurturing parent that loves them and teaches them. They want nothing more, and neither does the parent. — staticphoton
find me a scenario in which individual A is justified to force individual B to do something A doesn’t know B agrees with or not without having B’s consent and where B is put in a much riskier situation as a result — khaled
Ok great. Not every parent succeeds at providing that even if they can. And not every child grows to be happy. So why take the risk? Give me a reason that does not depend on your valuation of human existence as your child might not share it — khaled
find me a scenario in which individual A is justified to force individual B to do something A doesn’t know B agrees with or not without having B’s consent and where B is put in a much riskier situation as a result — khaled
find me a scenario in which individual A is justified to cause individual B to do something A doesn’t know B agrees with or not without having B’s consent and where B is put in a much riskier situation as a result — khaled
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.